Has the score of *Crimson Desert* sparked a huge controversy? Should a mediocre story really lead to a major point deduction?

It blew up! It really blew up!

With the review embargo for Crimson Desert lifted, it instantly turned overseas discussion forums into a full-on bonfire party. On March 19, 2026, media reviews officially went live. Scores were all over the place, but one complaint was strikingly consistent: the story doesn’t quite hit hard enough, and even feels a bit flat.

So here’s the question. How exactly should this game be judged? For a title that mainly sells itself on action, open-world design, and visual impact, if the story doesn’t reach masterpiece status, should that really drag the whole score down that much? That’s the real battleground today.

Overseas blogger @Critical_Scribe laid it out bluntly. His core point was simple: narrative is given too much weight in game reviews. Unless it’s a purely narrative-driven work like Life is Strange or Firewatch, then in a 10-point system, story should account for at most 2 points.

Is that take bold? Absolutely. But hold on—there’s actually some real logic behind it.

What he said is pretty grounded in reality. When players actually pick up a controller or sit down at a keyboard, the first things they feel aren’t how literary the dialogue is, but whether the combat feels good, whether the controls are smooth, whether the frame rate is stable, and whether the visuals can really carry the experience. In his words, "Gameplay will always be king, with performance and visuals close behind."

Doesn’t that sound a lot like what people say on livestreams: don’t talk about the story yet—show me how it feels to play first!

Even more interestingly, this blogger also mentioned that when he saw Crimson Desert was made by a Korean developer, he never expected “epic storytelling” to be the game’s biggest selling point in the first place. What mattered more to him was whether the game could make players think while operating under pressure, and whether it could give its action experience a real sense of intensity and presence.

But! The other side isn’t wrong either. Just because it’s an open-world action game doesn’t mean the story gets a free pass. You can build a huge world and make the combat look incredible, but if the characters aren’t memorable and the progression isn’t engaging, players can still burn out in the mid to late game. Especially since many media scores today are based on the overall experience, it’s naturally hard to separate narrative out entirely.

So the controversy around Crimson Desert this time isn’t really about whether the story is bad or not, but about how much the story should count. And that matters, because it could shape how people judge an entire category of games in the future: when it comes to big-budget titles that lean toward action, spectacle, and visuals, should they be judged by film standards or by game standards?

My view is simple. If Crimson Desert is not trying to tell a grand, complex epic, then sure, a mediocre story should cost it some points—but it shouldn’t be a deal-breaker. Especially in the open-world action lane, gameplay, performance, and feedback are always the main course. Story is more like bonus dessert; it shouldn’t steal the spotlight.

The advice for players is also pretty clear. If you’re the type who cares most about game feel, combat, or graphics, then this is still a title worth watching closely. But if you only buy games for strong narrative, character arcs, and a story that lingers with you, then it’s probably best to wait and see how the finer details of the reception shake out before deciding whether to jump in.

From here on out, this debate over “gameplay above all” versus “narrative is also a crucial part” will probably keep raging. If I had to sum it up in one livestream-ready line, it’d be this: whether a game can play well will always come before whether it can tell a good story. But if it wants top scores, being good at combat alone still isn’t enough.